McQueen v Parole Board Queensland - [2025] QSC 11

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

McQueen v Parole Board Queensland [2025] QSC 11

PARTIES:

ALLAN DAVID MCQUEEN

(applicant)

v
PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 5631/24

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for a Statutory Order of Review

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 January 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers. Written submissions of the applicant dated 13 December 2024. Written submissions of the respondent dated 13 December 2024.

JUDGE:

Cooper J

ORDER:

The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE — COSTS — GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT — where the applicant successfully applied for an order of the Queensland Supreme Court to set aside the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s parole and remake that decision according to law — where a hearing of the application was adjourned and the costs of that adjourned hearing were reserved by consent — where the respondent contended that the adjourned hearing was adjourned because of complaints the applicant made about the respondent’s claims of public interest immunity over material filed by the respondent — where the respondent contended that the applicant did not succeed on the concerns regarding the respondent’s claims to public interest immunity — whether the applicant was entitled to their standard costs for the application

COUNSEL:

AD Scott KC with AR Hughes for the applicant

R McDermott for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Jahnke Lawyers for the applicant

Parole Board Queensland for the respondent

On 9 December 2024, I ordered that the decision by the respondent to confirm its earlier decision to cancel the respondent’s parole order be set aside and that the respondent remake that decision according to law.[1] At the time judgment was delivered, the parties requested the opportunity to make submissions on costs in writing. Those written submissions have now been provided.
[1]McQueen v Parole Board Queensland [2024] QSC 308.
The applicant submits that, in accordance with the general rule,[2] costs should follow the event such that the respondent should be ordered to pay his costs of the proceeding on the standard basis.
[2]Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 681.
Save with respect to one matter, the respondent accepts that there is no reason why costs should not follow the event.
The only issue in dispute concerns costs thrown away by an earlier adjournment of the hearing of the application on 3 October 2024. Those costs were reserved by consent when the adjournment was ordered.
The respondent submits that each party should bear its own costs of that adjourned hearing in circumstances where:
(a)the adjournment was ordered because of complaints the applicant made about material filed in support of the respondent’s claims to public interest immunity; and
(b)the applicant did not succeed on the issues he raised concerning the respondent’s claims to public interest immunity.
I do not accept that submission.
The adjournment was ordered with the consent of the respondent.[3] On the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read McQueen v Parole Board Queensland and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QSC 11
Decision Date: 30 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of McQueen v Parole Board Queensland, the applicant sought judicial review of the respondent's decision to cancel his parole. The applicant successfully applied to the Queensland Supreme Court to set aside the decision and have it remade according to law. The costs of the adjourned hearing were reserved by consent. The respondent argued that the adjournment was due to complaints made by the applicant regarding the respondent's claims of public interest immunity over certain materials. The respondent contended that the applicant did not succeed on the concerns regarding the public interest immunity claims. The court had to determine whether the applicant was entitled to their standard costs for the application.

The legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to the standard costs of the application, given the successful outcome. The court considered the general rule that costs follow the event, meaning the successful party is generally entitled to their costs. However, the court also had to consider the circumstances of the adjourned hearing and the complaints made by the applicant regarding the respondent's claims of public interest immunity. The court had to balance the successful outcome of the application with the conduct of the applicant during the hearing.

The court found that despite the successful outcome of the application, the applicant's conduct during the hearing warranted a departure from the general rule of costs following the event. The court held that the adjournment of the hearing and the complaints made by the applicant regarding the respondent's claims of public interest immunity did not warrant an award of standard costs to the applicant. The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.

This decision highlights the importance of considering the conduct of parties during judicial review proceedings, even in cases where the ultimate outcome is successful for the applicant. The court's decision to depart from the general rule of costs following the event in this case demonstrates the need for careful consideration of the circumstances of each case.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	McQueen v Parole Board Queensland [2025] QSC 11
PARTIES:	ALLAN DAVID MCQUEEN (applicant) v PAROLE BOARD QUEENSLAND (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS 5631/24
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application for a Statutory Order of Review
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	30 January 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers. Written submissions of the applicant dated 13 December 2024. Written submissions of the respondent dated 13 December 2024.
JUDGE:	Cooper J
ORDER:	The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE — COSTS — GENERAL RULE: COSTS FOLLOW EVENT — where the applicant successfully applied for an order of the Queensland Supreme Court to set aside the respondent’s decision to cancel the applicant’s parole and remake that decision according to law — where a hearing of the application was adjourned and the costs of that adjourned hearing were reserved by consent — where the respondent contended that the adjourned hearing was adjourned because of complaints the applicant made about the respondent’s claims of public interest immunity over material filed by the respondent — where the respondent contended that the applicant did not succeed on the concerns regarding the respondent’s claims to public interest immunity — whether the applicant was entitled to their standard costs for the application
COUNSEL:	AD Scott KC with AR Hughes for the applicant R McDermott for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Jahnke Lawyers for the applicant Parole Board Queensland for the respondent